Speed up my Windows XP Pro. SP3 with Flash USB drives/drives?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ant
  • Start date Start date
"and also as a location for temporary files". That's a variant I have
not seen suggested before!
Click to expand...

Yep, I already moved %temp% to a different drive. :)
--
"When I am at my lowest, that is when I see things the clearest. It's
hard to care about ants when you're soaring with eagles." --unknown
/\___/\
/ /\ /\ \ Phil/Ant @ http://antfarm.ma.cx (Personal Web Site)
| |o o| | Ant's Quality Foraged Links (AQFL): http://aqfl.net
\ _ / Nuke ANT from e-mail address: (e-mail address removed)
( ) or (e-mail address removed)
Ant is currently not listening to any songs on his home computer.
 
Windows' Task Manager shows this already as "Commite Charge" (bottom
task bar) and "VM Size" column for process list.


The pagefile is always used regardless of the amount of RAM. However,
the more the RAM the less the use made of the pagefile.

You can get more accurate information on pagefile usage using
pagefilemon, a small freeware utility.

Use page file monitor to observe what is the peak usage. Start it to run
immediately after start-up and look at the log. Pagefilemon takes
snapshots. You need to run it at the beginning of the session at then
run it again at intervals throughout the sessions. The log is Pagefile
log.txt. If you right click on the file in Windows Explorer and select
Send to, Desktop (Create Shortcut). The same applies to
XP_PageFileMon.exe.

A small utility to monitor pagefile usage:
http://www.dougknox.com/xp/utils/xp_pagefilemon.htm

Note that programs using undo features, particularly those associated
with graphics and photo editing, require large amounts of memory so if
you use this type of programme check these first observing how the page
usage increases when they start and whether the usage decreases when you
close the programme.

You can get clues as to what is generating peak memory demands but this
is not a precise science, more a matter of judgement.


--



Hope this helps.

Gerry
~~~~
FCA
Stourport, England
Enquire, plan and execute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Click to expand...
--
"The greatest enemies of ants are other ants, just as the greatest
enemies of men are other men." --Auguste Forel
/\___/\
/ /\ /\ \ Phil/Ant @ http://antfarm.ma.cx (Personal Web Site)
| |o o| | Ant's Quality Foraged Links (AQFL): http://aqfl.net
\ _ / Nuke ANT from e-mail address: (e-mail address removed)
( ) or (e-mail address removed)
Ant is currently not listening to any songs on his home computer.
 
Ant

Your statement is incorrect. Task Manager does not record actual usage.
It records movements in allocations not usage.

Quote: "Note that these aspects of Windows XP have changed significantly
from earlier Windows NT versions, and practices that have been common
there may no longer be appropriate. Also, the 'PF Usage' (Page File in
Use) measurement in Task Manager | Performance for 'Page File in Use'
include those potential uses by pages that have not been taken up. It
makes a good indicator of the adequacy of the 'Maximum' size setting,
but not for the 'Initial' one, let alone for any need for more RAM."
Source: http://www.aumha.org/win5/a/xpvm.htm


--


Hope this helps.

Gerry
~~~~
FCA
Stourport, England
Enquire, plan and execute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 
JS

Fragmentation of the pagefile of itself does not matter. The problem is
that a pagefile fragmenting cause other files being written to fragment.
Placing the pagefile in a separate partition or setting a minimum =
maximum pagefile helps reduce fragmentation of the other files. Many
users feel that defragmenting a pagefile is a waste of time as it is
continually being rewritten.


--


Gerry
~~~~
FCA
Stourport, England
Enquire, plan and execute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 
More RAM... but in this case, the OP has enough.
Click to expand...

I wasn't really wondering... more like hinting!

The concept of implementing something similar to ReadyBoost in XP is
not new, there are third party apps that attempt to replicate it and
results and opinions vary.

If somebody comes across empirical, measurable and reprodcueable data
using methods to simulate ReadyBoost with XP, that would be most
interesting.
 
Gerry said:
JS

Fragmentation of the pagefile of itself does not matter. The problem
is that a pagefile fragmenting cause other files being written to
fragment. Placing the pagefile in a separate partition or setting a
minimum = maximum pagefile helps reduce fragmentation of the other
files. Many users feel that defragmenting a pagefile is a waste of
time as it is continually being rewritten.
Click to expand...

I don't know why you'd say that. Fragmentation of the pf is no
different in impact than any other file and often results in extended
pauses when it becomes too fragmented. What is fortunate is that XP
makes some mediocre attempts to keep it from fragmenting but it's far
from perfect, especially as a drive reaches close to capacity settings.
I've only seen a couple of badly fragmented pfs, but one in particular
had thousands of fragments to it. User must have turned it off & back
on with a nearly full drive was all I could figure. Just defragging the
drive took around 4 hours IIRC and it was only a 360 Gig drive.

Twayne
 
Good/morning evening
There are a few things to consider about attempting to speed up your
computer boot time. Everything that affects your system can be considered at
a couple of levels. First is your computer hard ware.

A) Have you looked into updating your computer bios?
Why? If your computer manufactor updated the microcode into the bios, will
reduce boot up time. And more efficient initialization of hardware will also
reduce your boot time. In addition any USB errors in your current bios may be
fixed. Also reducing startup/boot time. Is your bios set to quick boot? Plug
and play enabled?

1) Each motherboard is different. But have you disable any devices you are
not using? Anything that is initialized requires time. Extra Serial ports?
Usually not used. IEEE 1394, you do not have any devices like a hard drive
connected?

2) How old is your computer? Replaced any of the thermal interface material?
Some processors have thermal throttling which reduces the processor speed.
Have you turned this off? Cleaned up cable management ?

3) Memory speeds. A great resource for memory specifications is cpuz. Is
your memory speed the quickest available for your processor? DDR 3200 is
faster then 2700. Search for more information here. Not to open up a can of
worms bur ddr2 is better then DDR1. Lower memory latencys also help out here.
As mentioned above, a bios update may reconize more memory DIMMs.

B) Hard drive If you are using an "green" drive. This will spin slower and
slow down your computer system. Most drives are slower then say a Western
digital hard drive. And this is outclassed by a S.S.D. another alternative.

C) Since you have not mentioned if you are using a desktop or lap top.
SSD is better for the laptop. A cache IDE/SATA(depending which you are
using for harddrive) with at least 64 Megs of memory will always help out
your boot times.
Is your hard drive set to use DMA? Some motherboard chipsets do not allow
this to work because of designed in cost reductions.

D) Processor. Are you using the latest processor with a larger cache
appropriate to the programs you wish to run? Photo shop will load up a single
core computer. Dual core is better. Any anti-virus programs running? Tri-core
is better. Also consider buying a can of air and blowing out the fans and the
botherboard

E) Video card. Which card are you using? searching for a better card would
help out. And this brings up drivers. Manufactors generally improve both
performance and reliability of drivers.

Soft ware improvement
Defragmentation; I have used various types of programs to restore order to
files on my hard drives through out the years. IOBit.com defrag, is my
current defragger.

Here is some things to look at at the soft ware level

First the Operating System

Is your chipset driver up to date? Intel, Nvidia, and Via usually update
there chipset drivers.

Are you using windows installer 4.5?
Windows scripting host 5.6?
Using dot net 1.1 up to version 3.5?
Looked at using bootvis to optimize start up.
Using direct x and the latest version?

Running Software
Cleaned out your startup folder? Anything like microsoft office slow down
boot up.

technet.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals/bb963902.aspx

Link to look for programs that are being run on startup. If you are
comfortable using regedit. Always back this up before editing.
http://www.anvir.com/windows-startup-programs-xp.htm

Multiple anti-virus programs? Another slow down. Which also brings up
insecure software. Secunia.com will tell you if you have multiple installs of
programs with different versions. Duplicates can cause problems. Each program
is different. Seaching for help will give you the most appropriate fix.

Delay startup of programs in the startup folder links
http://www.r2.com.au/software.php?
http://www.joejoesoft.com/sr.php
http://uk.geocities.com/personel44/maintenance.html

Search for someting called tweak, and clean memory and connectors of your
memory. Reduces contanimates and improves connection speed. Usefull in a lot
of ways. Improving the connection from a lap top battery to computer. Diry
USB connections. Even a pencil eraser will help out in a pinch.


Hopefully this helps you out.

1stknight
 
Ant said:
2 GB of RAM. Having some minor speed improvements with those USB Flash
drives would be nice. ;)
Click to expand...

USB drives are SLOW. About 10 times slower than a hard drive.* Then, too,
they fail after a relatively small number of read-write cycles.
 
Ant said:
Yeah, I thought I could speed up XP's boot up like Vista's ReadyBoast
with one of those USB Flash sticks/drives. ;)
Click to expand...

It is conceivable that you could add a solid-state drive to your system,
and use that for your page file. I have no idea if such a drive would
work well in that configuration, but I've seen systems with nothing but
a solid-state drive, so it must be OK. The ones I've seen are 80Gb. You
could probably put other stuff on there as well as your page file - you
are not going to cause seek problems.

My system has an 80Gb C: drive, and I'm tempted to change that to a
solid-state drive if my employer fails to update my PC next January, as
was scheduled.
 
Ant said:
Hello.

I read that Vista and Windows 7 can be sped up faster by using Flash USB
sticks/drives (have 256 MB to 1 GB sizes). Can this be done with an
updated Windows XP Pro. SP3 too?

Thank you in advance. :)
Click to expand...

What are you doing where you think your system needs to go faster? If you keep installing and
uninstalling programs, moving data around, it would be good to defrag your system.

If your system has been in place for a few years and you install lots of programs, uninstall
programs, it would be an improvement to reinstall Windows from scratch. That is a lot of work
but it will speed up your system quite a bit.

Every year I reinstall from scratch and only install the programs that I need. I then copy my
data back and everything is cool to go.

I have it down to a science and can re-do a system in a couple of hours.
 
It is conceivable that you could add a solid-state drive to your system,
and use that for your page file. I have no idea if such a drive would
work well in that configuration, but I've seen systems with nothing but
a solid-state drive, so it must be OK. The ones I've seen are 80Gb. You
could probably put other stuff on there as well as your page file - you
are not going to cause seek problems.
Click to expand...

Thanks. That could be an interesting idea and faster than USB 2.0.

My system has an 80Gb C: drive, and I'm tempted to change that to a
solid-state drive if my employer fails to update my PC next January, as
was scheduled.
Click to expand...

Haha, I remember I used to have 10 GB for C: drive and I only had like
900 MB free. I had to replace the HDD due to that.

Bummer on upgrading office computers. I know that feeling since mine are
very old (Prescott and HyperThreading/HT P4s, single core Athlon 64
3200+, etc.). :(
--
"I have to sit up with a sick ant." --unknown
/\___/\
/ /\ /\ \ Phil/Ant @ http://antfarm.ma.cx (Personal Web Site)
| |o o| | Ant's Quality Foraged Links (AQFL): http://aqfl.net
\ _ / Nuke ANT from e-mail address: (e-mail address removed)
( ) or (e-mail address removed)
Ant is currently not listening to any songs on his home computer.
 
I read that Vista and Windows 7 can be sped up faster by using Flash USB
What are you doing where you think your system needs to go faster? If you keep installing and
uninstalling programs, moving data around, it would be good to defrag your system.
Click to expand...

Just gaming. I was only interested to see what else I can do to
improve speed on my quad core system. Yes, it's fast enough but it
never hurts to have more speed. [grin]

If your system has been in place for a few years and you install lots of programs, uninstall
programs, it would be an improvement to reinstall Windows from scratch. That is a lot of work
but it will speed up your system quite a bit.

Every year I reinstall from scratch and only install the programs that I need. I then copy my
data back and everything is cool to go.

I have it down to a science and can re-do a system in a couple of hours.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but a pain to reinstall and reconfigure 100+ softwares which I
don't have time for. I do back up my HDDs once in a while and back up
my datas weekly though. :)
 
Ant said:
What are you doing where you think your system needs to go faster? If
you keep installing and
uninstalling programs, moving data around, it would be good to defrag
your system.
Click to expand...

Just gaming. I was only interested to see what else I can do to
improve speed on my quad core system. Yes, it's fast enough but it
never hurts to have more speed. [grin]

If your system has been in place for a few years and you install lots of
programs, uninstall
programs, it would be an improvement to reinstall Windows from scratch.
That is a lot of work
but it will speed up your system quite a bit.

Every year I reinstall from scratch and only install the programs that I
need. I then copy my
data back and everything is cool to go.

I have it down to a science and can re-do a system in a couple of hours.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but a pain to reinstall and reconfigure 100+ softwares which I
don't have time for. I do back up my HDDs once in a while and back up
my datas weekly though. :)
Click to expand...

Since you install lots of programs and have lot installed you should
consider a disk imaging program such as Acronis True Image.
 
Since you install lots of programs and have lot installed you should
consider a disk imaging program such as Acronis True Image.
Click to expand...

I already do use a disk image program (Symantec/Norton Ghost; not in my
installed Windows XP Pro. SP3 -- use a bootable CD/disk).
--
"Look not to the windmill's turning while the ant still burrows." --unknown
/\___/\
/ /\ /\ \ Phil/Ant @ http://antfarm.ma.cx (Personal Web Site)
| |o o| | Ant's Quality Foraged Links (AQFL): http://aqfl.net
\ _ / Nuke ANT from e-mail address: (e-mail address removed)
( ) or (e-mail address removed)
Ant is currently not listening to any songs on his home computer.
 
If speed is your objective, and cost is not a deterrent, image your current
drive, install a SSD HD, re-install the image. "Chris Prillo" did and says
its a slam bam for performance. I would sure like to hear from an average
joe who tried it.
 
If speed is your objective, and cost is not a deterrent, image your current
drive, install a SSD HD, re-install the image. "Chris Prillo" did and says
its a slam bam for performance. I would sure like to hear from an average
joe who tried it.
Click to expand...


SSD drives tend to be on the small side and expensive. I have three
drives on my personal machine here. The C: drive is an
OCZSSD2-1VTX120G Vertex Series 120GB SATA II SSD ($370), and is the
place where Windows and applications are stored. The other two drives
are hard drives.

Yes, it seems very fast, but I don't have a previous experience on
this system to compare it with directly.
 
In
WMB said:
If speed is your objective, and cost is not a deterrent, image your
current drive, install a SSD HD, re-install the image. "Chris
Prillo" did and says its a slam bam for performance. I would sure
like to hear from an average joe who tried it.
Click to expand...

An SSD drive would be about the same speed as RAM and would easily run rings
around a mechanical hard drive. It's pretty much a given.
However if the reason for the slowdown isn't known, an expensive SSD drive
might simply cover up a problem if an inexperienced user tries it because he
has nothing to reference the performance to. It might still be a slow, half
borked system, but the user won't know that because of the speed increase.
A new install would be much better than an image containing all the
collected problems and speed killers of the last xx months.

HTH,

Twayne`
 
SSD drives tend to be on the small side and expensive. I have three
drives on my personal machine here. The C: drive is an
OCZSSD2-1VTX120G Vertex Series 120GB SATA II SSD ($370), and
is the place where Windows and applications are stored. The other
two drives are hard drives.

Yes, it seems very fast, but I don't have a previous experience on
this system to compare it with directly.
Click to expand...

Ken, I had thought there was an issue with the fairly limited number of max
write cycles with any SSDs, making them NOT very suitable for windows (like
the regular C: drive, where there is always a LOT of constant write
activity).

(yes, I'm aware SSDs have some built-in "wear leveling" techniques to spread
this activity out over different arrays of storage locations, but even at
that...)
 
Ken, I had thought there was an issue with the fairly limited number of max
write cycles with any SSDs, making them NOT very suitable for windows (like
the regular C: drive, where there is always a LOT of constant write
activity).

(yes, I'm aware SSDs have some built-in "wear leveling" techniques to spread
this activity out over different arrays of storage locations, but even at
that...)
Click to expand...


There may eventually be such an issue, but I haven't experienced it so
far. Perhaps I'm taking my chances with it, but I've been very happy
with the performance.
 
In Ken Blake, MVP typed on Sun, 08 Nov 2009 13:11:50 -0700:
There may eventually be such an issue, but I haven't experienced it so
far. Perhaps I'm taking my chances with it, but I've been very happy
with the performance.
Click to expand...

Nor all SSD are equal for one. For example:

1) SLC type lasts 100,000 or more complete writes

2) MLC type lasts 5,000 to 10,000 complete writes

Secondly if you want to limit the number of writes, this is easy to do.
Just turning off System Restore and a swapfile is a very big help right
there.

Thirdly, you can totally stop all writes if you want to by merging MS
EWF files into your Windows XP.

I have seen heavy use of MLC SSD die in a year or two. They usually have
a warrantee of one year. SLC SSD should last 10 years plus without
problems. Although if you limit writing, you will be long dead before
you ever wear one of them out.
 
Back
Top